Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod (Name Deleted As Per Court Order ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3384 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1. NAGULAL S/O RUGNATH BHOL, AGED ABOUT 55
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GRAM
PARVAT KHEDA, TEHSIL MAHIDPUR, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RITU RAJ BHATNAGAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER) .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU. P.S. MAHIDPUR, DISTT. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI SAMEER VERMA PL FOR THE STATE).
Reserved on :21.02.2024
Pronounced on : 27.02.2024
This criminal revision having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
1.With consent of the parties heard finally.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed by the petitioner
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.07.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Ujjain, in Cr.A.No.22/2017, whereby the appeal was partly allowed by affirming the order
of conviction of the appellant passed by JMFC, Ujjain, for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC
and sentence of 9 months R.I. with fine of Rs. 400/- and Section 323/34 of IPC and sentence of
03 months R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- and default stipulations.
3.The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the
course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this revision on merit and nor
assailed the finding part of judgment. He confined his argument on the point of sentence only and
prays that since the petitioner has already undergone more than one month of jail incarceration,
therefore his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the
petitioner deserve some leniency as he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2011. It is
further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be
reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and
prays for dismissal of this revision.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper.
6. However, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has not
committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that both
the courts below considered the evidence available on record and correctly found that the case of
the prosecution is well supported by the injured, witnesses and medical testimony. Both the Courts
below have well considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the
impugned order of conviction passed by both the Courts below, accordingly, the same is upheld.
7. So far as the sentence of the applicant is concerned, taking into consideration that the
incident had taken place in the year 2011 and further the applicant has already undergone jail
sentence of more than one month out of nine months, this Court is of the view that the conviction
of the applicant under Section 325/34 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by
enhancing the fine amount from Rs.400 to Rs.10,000/- and under sections 323/34 of IPC, the jail
sentence under this offence is also reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing fine
amount from Rs.200/- to Rs.1,000/- which will be deposited within a period of two months from
today, out of the total fine amount, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the injured person Bagdiram under
Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
8. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation amount paid to the
injured if any shall be adjusted.
9. The bail bond of the applicant shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. If the
applicant fails to deposit the fine amount, they will suffer one month of simple imprisonment in
default and thereafter completion of the same, he shall be released from jail, if not required in any
other case.
10. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property, if any,
stands confirmed.
11. The revision petition stands partly allowed and disposed of.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.
13. Pending application, if any, stands closed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
